The Purpose of Censorship (to gag us to prevent alarm sounding as they drag us away)
Give up your free speech at your peril. Once they are able to silence you, the game is over. The loss of all of your other freedoms will follow shortly after. Anyone that advocates to censor you, or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary. Treat them like one - no matter what else they say.
But why is it so vital and necessary for the combined monolithic apparatus of government, corporations, and NGOs, to brute force censor everyone while decimating the careers and reputations of the dissenters? Here is why:
The reason the First Amendment is prime directive order 1, is because it is the most important freedom we have for the same reason it is the first target an adversary subverts, disrupts, and destroys during a crime, a war, or a takeover—preventing a target from assembling, communicating, and organizing a response to an assault grants an enormous advantage to the aggressors.
The Second Amendment is second because it is the remedy for anyone trying to subvert the First.
With all respect, that doesn't make sense. Why would anyone defend the "right" to yell "fire" in a packed theater knowing that that will cause a stampede and people will die?
Words are not merely soundbites or (impulsive or well-thought-through) expressions of personal feelings. Words DO something to the world around you. So the limit to free speech is clear: if it literally kills people, it SHOULD be censored, obviously. If not you're advocating murder. A society where murder is legal is NOT a free society, for sure.
Also, we vitally NEED the government to unmask anonymity once you've committed a violent crime, so that we can apply the law and punish you. Or would you like mass murderers to continue to post anonymously in such a way that we cannot easily find and jail them... ?
Finally, I'm sorry to see that you still believe that the last global pandemic was fake. But it you continue to believe it so many years later, after years and years of scientific proof, I presume there's nothing I could say here that would make you pause and think, so let's leave covid aside and focus on my main argument: speech that leads to death SHOULD be censored. Any counterarguments?
Maybe I might help with this: I had covid twice during the pandemic period, even though I was fully vaccinated. But the course of the disease was milder due to my partial immunity. Without the vaccines I might have died, as I fall into one of the at-risk groups. Covid was real and I had the nasal swabs to prove it.
That's demonstrably false. I presume that's why you didn't even try to refute my arguments? Also, the idea that the first Amendment would supersede anything else in the Constitution is not part of what the Founding Fathers claimed or intended - precisely because there are no real counterarguments against what I just wrote.
A democracy is a government not only BY the people but also FOR the people. That's why no one has unlimited freedom. If you say things that will kill me, I'm sorry, but any government that would make that legal would not be doing its basic job of guaranteeing each individual citizen's basic security.
The main difference between democracy and fascism, when it comes to censorship, is not that democracy would never ever censor anything. It's WHAT is censored and HOW it is done that is entirely different. In a fascist regime, anything that taints the reputation of the leader and the governing party is censored, whether it is true or false. In a democratic regime, anything that is both demonstrably, objectively false AND endangers the lives of ordinary citizens is censored, at least during the most risky moments (today, for instance, you can easily spread covid conspiracy theories everywhere, since doing so won't lead to millions of additional deaths anymore, contrary to what was DEMONSTRABLY the case during the height of the pandemic; and it's a good thing that you can tell us that you still believe that those conspiracy theories are true because we vitally NEED a public debate about it as long as there is still one citizen believing in them. But we cannot possibly have any doubts linger at a moment when doubt itself is lethal. Whenever that's the case, democracy's first job to protect ALL lives supersedes free speech).
Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean that the First Amendment would somehow have a meaning that is entirely disconnected from all other parts of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. So again, what are you arguments PRO a form of government that would make it legal for citizens to say things that would directly and demonstrably lead to the death of fellow citizens? Any idea?
Free speech from Donald Trump led to the J6 insurrection. He hid, watching it all unfold and did absolutely nothing to stop it. Even the leaders of the J6 insurrection admitted in court that they believed that’s what Trump was telling them to do was destroy the Capital building and kill people. So you see out of the insurrectionists own mouths free speech is dangerous!
Keep up the great work. They know they are in trouble!!
The Purpose of Censorship (to gag us to prevent alarm sounding as they drag us away)
Give up your free speech at your peril. Once they are able to silence you, the game is over. The loss of all of your other freedoms will follow shortly after. Anyone that advocates to censor you, or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary. Treat them like one - no matter what else they say.
But why is it so vital and necessary for the combined monolithic apparatus of government, corporations, and NGOs, to brute force censor everyone while decimating the careers and reputations of the dissenters? Here is why:
The reason the First Amendment is prime directive order 1, is because it is the most important freedom we have for the same reason it is the first target an adversary subverts, disrupts, and destroys during a crime, a war, or a takeover—preventing a target from assembling, communicating, and organizing a response to an assault grants an enormous advantage to the aggressors.
The Second Amendment is second because it is the remedy for anyone trying to subvert the First.
With all respect, that doesn't make sense. Why would anyone defend the "right" to yell "fire" in a packed theater knowing that that will cause a stampede and people will die?
Words are not merely soundbites or (impulsive or well-thought-through) expressions of personal feelings. Words DO something to the world around you. So the limit to free speech is clear: if it literally kills people, it SHOULD be censored, obviously. If not you're advocating murder. A society where murder is legal is NOT a free society, for sure.
Also, we vitally NEED the government to unmask anonymity once you've committed a violent crime, so that we can apply the law and punish you. Or would you like mass murderers to continue to post anonymously in such a way that we cannot easily find and jail them... ?
Finally, I'm sorry to see that you still believe that the last global pandemic was fake. But it you continue to believe it so many years later, after years and years of scientific proof, I presume there's nothing I could say here that would make you pause and think, so let's leave covid aside and focus on my main argument: speech that leads to death SHOULD be censored. Any counterarguments?
Maybe I might help with this: I had covid twice during the pandemic period, even though I was fully vaccinated. But the course of the disease was milder due to my partial immunity. Without the vaccines I might have died, as I fall into one of the at-risk groups. Covid was real and I had the nasal swabs to prove it.
The only thing more dangerous than free speech, is not having it.
The Founding Fathers learned this the hard way.
But alas, time flows like a river…
…and history repeats
Hard times create strong men
Strong men create good times
Good times create weak men
Weak men create hard times
Rinse/Repeat
That's demonstrably false. I presume that's why you didn't even try to refute my arguments? Also, the idea that the first Amendment would supersede anything else in the Constitution is not part of what the Founding Fathers claimed or intended - precisely because there are no real counterarguments against what I just wrote.
A democracy is a government not only BY the people but also FOR the people. That's why no one has unlimited freedom. If you say things that will kill me, I'm sorry, but any government that would make that legal would not be doing its basic job of guaranteeing each individual citizen's basic security.
The main difference between democracy and fascism, when it comes to censorship, is not that democracy would never ever censor anything. It's WHAT is censored and HOW it is done that is entirely different. In a fascist regime, anything that taints the reputation of the leader and the governing party is censored, whether it is true or false. In a democratic regime, anything that is both demonstrably, objectively false AND endangers the lives of ordinary citizens is censored, at least during the most risky moments (today, for instance, you can easily spread covid conspiracy theories everywhere, since doing so won't lead to millions of additional deaths anymore, contrary to what was DEMONSTRABLY the case during the height of the pandemic; and it's a good thing that you can tell us that you still believe that those conspiracy theories are true because we vitally NEED a public debate about it as long as there is still one citizen believing in them. But we cannot possibly have any doubts linger at a moment when doubt itself is lethal. Whenever that's the case, democracy's first job to protect ALL lives supersedes free speech).
The Amendments were ordered by priority…
Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean that the First Amendment would somehow have a meaning that is entirely disconnected from all other parts of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. So again, what are you arguments PRO a form of government that would make it legal for citizens to say things that would directly and demonstrably lead to the death of fellow citizens? Any idea?
Free speech from Donald Trump led to the J6 insurrection. He hid, watching it all unfold and did absolutely nothing to stop it. Even the leaders of the J6 insurrection admitted in court that they believed that’s what Trump was telling them to do was destroy the Capital building and kill people. So you see out of the insurrectionists own mouths free speech is dangerous!
Sophist bullshit
Whack job alert!